On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 01:48:53PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On 4/20/25 3:05 AM, Jon Kohler wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c
> > index b9b9e9d40951..9b04025eea66 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vhost/net.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c
> > @@ -769,13 +769,17 @@ static void handle_tx_copy(struct vhost_net *net,
> > struct socket *sock)
> > break;
> > /* Nothing new? Wait for eventfd to tell us they refilled. */
> > if (head == vq->num) {
> > + /* If interrupted while doing busy polling, requeue
> > + * the handler to be fair handle_rx as well as other
> > + * tasks waiting on cpu
> > + */
> > if (unlikely(busyloop_intr)) {
> > vhost_poll_queue(&vq->poll);
> > - } else if (unlikely(vhost_enable_notify(&net->dev,
> > - vq))) {
> > - vhost_disable_notify(&net->dev, vq);
> > - continue;
> > }
> > + /* Kicks are disabled at this point, break loop and
> > + * process any remaining batched packets. Queue will
> > + * be re-enabled afterwards.
> > + */
> > break;
> > }
>
> It's not clear to me why the zerocopy path does not need a similar change.
It can have one, it's just that Jon has a separate patch to drop
it completely. A commit log comment mentioning this would be a good
idea, yes.
> > @@ -825,7 +829,14 @@ static void handle_tx_copy(struct vhost_net *net,
> > struct socket *sock)
> > ++nvq->done_idx;
> > } while (likely(!vhost_exceeds_weight(vq, ++sent_pkts, total_len)));
> >
> > + /* Kicks are still disabled, dispatch any remaining batched msgs. */
> > vhost_tx_batch(net, nvq, sock, &msg);
> > +
> > + /* All of our work has been completed; however, before leaving the
> > + * TX handler, do one last check for work, and requeue handler if
> > + * necessary. If there is no work, queue will be reenabled.
> > + */
> > + vhost_net_busy_poll_try_queue(net, vq);
>
> This will call vhost_poll_queue() regardless of the 'busyloop_intr' flag
> value, while AFAICS prior to this patch vhost_poll_queue() is only
> performed with busyloop_intr == true. Why don't we need to take care of
> such flag here?
Hmm I agree this is worth trying, a free if possibly small performance
gain, why not. Jon want to try?
> @Michael: I assume you prefer that this patch will go through the
> net-next tree, right?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paolo
I don't mind and this seems to be what Jon wants.
I could queue it too, but extra review it gets in the net tree is good.
--
MST
